I've been trying to wrap my head around this and think I finally got it.
Your deduction is (1) depression involved emotions and all emotions are unique, thus subjective. (2) Subjectivity results in different decisions, answers, explanations and opinions. (3) Evolution is a single explanation. So teaching evolution excludes other explanations -- like creationism. Thus, problems of depression in evolutionist universities are caused by teaching evolution.
This conclusion: teaching evolution is responsible for depression is caused by (1) a fallacious generalization that all evolutionists are Atheists -- with whom you disagree -- giving you a bias; (2) a false cause argument arising from your opinion that the absence of an option for creationist teachings in public universities -- which you've termed "subjectivity" -- is (dogmatically) wrong; and, (3) an ad hominem fallacy of avoiding objecting to the merits of evolution by attacking evolutionists (which you've generalized as Atheists).
Masking the true intent to argue for religious teaching (creationism) in public universities is an insincere rhetorical strategy. Also, attempting to refute the evidenced reasons in the articles by claiming that the "common sense" reason is more obvious (and correct) suggests you do not accept that the most evidenced reason is the "common sense" reason. If you are not willing to concede at least that axiom, you will confront many obstacles in your academic discourse and you will continue to be criticized for your irrationality by many on this forum.
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”-Sam Harris